Cite as U.S. v. One 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano Military rifle, 250
F.Supp. 410, (N.D.Tx. 1966), reversed, King v. U.S., 364 F.2d
235.
UNITED STATES of America, Libelant,
v.
ONE 6.5 mm. MANNLICHER-CARCANO MILITARY RIFLE, Model 91-38,
Serial No. C2766, with Appurtenances, and One .38 Special S&W
Victory Model Revolver, Serial No.V510210, with Appurtenances,
Respondents.
Civ. A. No. 3-1171.
United States District Court N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
Feb. 23, 1966.
B. H. Timmins, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., James F. Gaulding,
Asst. Regional Counsel, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Div., Dallas,
Tex., for libelant.
William C. Garrett and Eugene R. Lyerly, Kilgore & Kilgore,
Dallas, Tex., for John J. King; Holmberg & Poulson, James S.
Holmberg, Denver, Colo., of counsel.
ESTES, Chief Judge.
The United States of America brings this proceeding for
forfeiture of respondent military rifle and revolver to the
government because these weapons were involved in violations of
the Federal Firearms Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 901-909. Claimant,
John J. King, denies the right of the government to forfeiture
and claims title to the weapons by purchase from Marina N.
Oswald, individually and as community administratrix of the
estate of Lee Harvey Oswald. It is stipulated for the purpose of
this action only that respondent rifle was used by Lee Harvey
Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy and the pistol
was used by Lee Harvey Oswald in killing a Dallas police officer.
The case was heard on the "Stipulation of Facts" appended hereto,
briefs and oral argument.
Title 15, United States Code, section 903(d), enacted June
30, 1938, provides:
"Licensed dealers shall maintain such permanent records of *
* * shipment, and * * * disposal of firearms * * * as the
Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe." (* * * ch. 850,
section 3, 52 Stat. 1251.)
Section 905(a) provides:
"Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter
or any rules and regulations promulgated hereunder * * *
shall, upon conviction thereof, be * * * (guilty of a felony
offense)."
Section 905(b), enacted February 7, 1950, provides:
"Any firearm * * * involved in any violation of the
provisions of this chapter or any rules or regulations
promulgated thereunder shall be subject to seizure and
forfeiture * * *." (June 30, 1938, ch. 850, section 5, 52
Stat. 1252; Feb. 7, 1950, ch. 2, 64 Stat. 3.)
Section 907 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to
carry out the provisions of the Federal Firearms Act.
26 Code of Federal Regulations, section 177.51 Firearms
Records, provides:
"Each licensed * * * dealer shall maintain complete and
adequate records. * * * The records will show and include: *
* * (c) The disposition made of each firearm including the
name and address of the person to whom sold. * * *"
This means, of course, the name by which the purchaser could be
identified, not a fictitious name which would not disclose but
would conceal his identity.
The names A. Hidell and A. J. Hidell were purely fictitious
names willfully, intentionally, deliberately and fraudulently
contrived by Lee Harvey Oswald for the purpose of deceiving the
dealers and concealing Oswald's identity as purchaser of
respondent rifle and revolver.
"* * * Regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury,
pursuant to statutory authority, and when (as here)
necessary to make a statute effective * * * (have) the force
of law." United States v. Fisher (5 Cir. 1965), 353 F.2d
396, 398-99, citing Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282
U.S. 375, 51 S.Ct. 144, 75 L.Ed. 397; Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496,
501, 68 S.Ct. 695, 92 L.Ed. 831.
In the history of the Federal Firearms Act (enacted June 30,
1938, 15 U.S.C. ss 901-909, which did not include s 905(b),
enacted February 7, 1950), Senate Report No. 82, 75th Congress,
states:
"The bill under consideration * * * is designed to regulate
* * * the shipment through interstate commerce of all
firearms (and) * * * will go far in the direction we are
seeking and will eliminate the gun from the crooks' hands."
In the history of 15 U.S.C. section 905(b), which provides
for seizure and forfeiture for any violation of the Federal
Firearms Act "or any rules or regulations * * * thereunder,"
Senate Report No. 1207 (January 6, 1950), U.S.Code Cong. Service
1950, p. 1907, shows that the purpose of this legislation is to
give express authority to law enforcement officials "for the
seizure, forfeiture, and disposition of firearms * * * involved
in violations of the Federal Firearms Act. (U.S.C., title 15,
secs. 901-909)."
To constitute a crime, there must be the joint operation of
two essential elements, an act forbidden by law and an intent to
do the act, or there must be the omission of a duty required by
the law and the intent to omit that duty.
In determining a defendant's intention, the law assumes that
every person intends the natural consequences of his voluntary
acts or omissions. Therefore, the intent required to be proven as
an element of the crime is inferred from the defendant's
voluntary commission of the act forbidden by law, or from his
omission of the duty required by law, and it is not necessary to
establish that the defendant knew that his act or omission was a
violation of the law.
Section 2 of Title 18, U.S.C., provides:
"(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its
commission, is punishable as a principal.
"(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if
directly performed by him or another would be an offense
against the United States, is punishable as a principal."
An actor who commits an offense can be the "real though
unconscious agent" whose conviction is not a prerequisite to
conviction of the one who causes the offense to be committed.
United States v. Giles (1937), 300 U.S. 41, 48, 57 S.Ct. 340, 81
L.Ed. 493; Walker v. United States (10 Cir., 1951), 192 F.2d 47.
Lee Harvey Oswald violated and caused to be violated the
Federal Firearms Act, 15 U.S.C. section 903(d), and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, 26 C.F.R. 177.51, requiring
"(e)ach licensed * * * dealer * * * (to) maintain complete and
adequate records * * * (which) show * * * the disposition made of
each firearm including the name * * * of the person to whom sold
* * *", in that Lee Harvey Oswald voluntarily, willfully,
intentionally, fraudulently and deliberately caused to fictitious
names A. Hidell and A. J. Hidell to be entered in the firearms
dealers' records as purchaser of the respondent rifle and
revolver, respectively, by placing those fictitious names in his
order for respondent firearms, thereby causing the records to
fail to show the name of the person to whom respondent firearms
were actually sold.
All the circumstances and the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald
did not use his own name in his purchase orders, but instead used
the fictitious names A. Hidell and A. J. Hidell, plainly show
that Oswald intended to mislead and deceive the dealers and to
make it appear that a person separate and apart from Oswald was
the person to whom the firearms were sold, thereby deliberately,
willfully, intentionally and fraudulently producing a record
which failed to show the name of the person to whom the firearms
were sold.
In United States v. Giles (1937), 300 U.S. 41, 57 S.Ct. 340,
the Supreme Court held that to commit the offense of making a
false entry in bank records, a person need not himself make the
false entry if, in fact, he takes
"* * * deliberate action from which a false entry by an
innocent intermediary necessarily follows * * *. To hold
that it (the false entry statute) applies only when the
accused personally writes the false entry or affirmatively
directs another so to do would emasculate the statute--
defeat the very end in view.
* * *
"* * * The false entries * * * were the intended and
necessary result of respondent's deliberate action * * *.
Within the statute he made them." At 48-49, 57 S.Ct. at 344.
Likewise, the failure of the Firearms dealers' records to show
the name of the person to whom the respondent rifle and revolver
were sold was the intended and necessary result of Oswald's
deliberate actions.
The records of the sale of these weapons specifically
referred to and "involved" respondent rifle and revolver. Lee
Harvey Oswald willfully caused the firearms dealers to fail to
keep "complete and adequate" records of the disposition of the
respondent firearms as required by law, by deliberately,
willfully, intentionally and fraudulently producing records which
did not show the name of the firearms purchaser as required by
law. Respondent firearms were "involved in" a violation of the
record-keeping provisions of 15 U.S.C. section 903(d) and 26
C.F.R. section 177.51, and have been forfeited to the United
States under Section 905(b) of Title 15 U.S.C.
Violations of record-keeping laws and regulations thereunder
have been held to exist where sellers required to keep records of
sales were caused by purchasers to make false records of the
address to be entered on records of narcotic sales, Walker v.
United States (10 Cir., 1951), 192 F.2d 47; and entries on bank
records, United States v. Giles (1937), 300 U.S. 41, 57 S.Ct.
340. Liquor, Thacher's Distilled Spirits v. United States (1881),
103 U.S. 679, 26 L.Ed. 535; and automobiles, One 1941 Buick
Sedan, etc. v. United States (10 Cir., 1946), 158 F.2d 445, have
been held subject to forfeiture for failure to keep required
records of liquor sales.
The requirement of the law, 15 U.S.C. section 903(d), and
the regulations, 26 C.F.R. section 177.51, that the dealer keep a
record showing the name of the person to whom a firearm is sold
was enacted for the important purpose of identifying the person
to whom firearms are sold and to "eliminate to gun from the
crooks' hands." If the deliberate production of records with
fictitious names of purchasers of firearms does not violate the
Federal Firearms Act, then every crook in the United States can,
by the simple device of ordering in a fictitious name, obtain
firearms with complete immunity. This would make a shambles of
the Federal Firearms Act.
Claimant King's contentions that forfeiture of respondent
firearms deprives him of property without due process of law and
takes private property for public use without just compensation
is without merit. In Associates Investment Co. v. United States
(5 Cir., 1955), 220 F.2d 885, the Court said in respect to
forfeiture of an automobile used in the transportation of
marihuana:
"* * * It is well settled that such deprivation (forfeiture)
is not a denial of due process of law, or a taking of
private property for public use without fair compensation."
At 888.
Judge Will's discriminating opinion in United States v. One
1962 Ford Thunderbird (N.D.Ill., 1964), 232 F.Supp. 1019, 1022,
states:
"Where Congress, in the implementation of its
constitutional powers, provides for penalties such as
forfeitures, such action is not a taking of property in a
constitutional sense. It is not an instance of eminent
domain, in which property is taken because the use of such
property is beneficial to the public. Rather, the property
interest is infringed because Congress was deemed it
necessary in order to preserve other incidents of the public
welfare. As such, it represents a federal exercise of a
police power to which the constitutional requirement of
compensation is inapplicable. See Hamilton v. Kentucky
Distillers Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156-157, 40 S.Ct. 106, 64
L.Ed. 194 (1919) * * *." [footnote *]
Claimant King is in no sense an innocent purchaser. He knew
when he purchased his claimed interest in these firearms, on
December 31, 1964, and March 25, 1965, that they were not in the
possession of the seller, Marina N. Oswald, individually and as
community administratrix of the Estate of Lee Harvey Oswald, and
that the weapons were in possession of agents of the United
States. The Bill of Sale and Contract covering "all right, title
and interest" of the seller in the weapons expressly recognizes
that the weapons were subject to "adverse claims." A $35,000
additional contingent payment was conditioned upon obtaining
possession "free and clear of all adverse claims."
Forfeiture of respondent weapons occurred and took effect
immediately upon their involvement in the violation of the
Federal Firearms Act in March, 1963, and the right to the
property vested in the United States at that time. Formal
declaration of forfeiture relates back to that time and avoids
all intervening sales, even to innocent purchasers. United States
v. Stowell (1890), 133 U.S. 1, 17, 10 S.Ct. 244, 33 L.Ed. 555;
Thacher's Distilled Spirits v. United States (1881), 103 U.S.
679, 26 L.Ed. 535. The government is entitled to judgment of
forfeiture.
See Public Law 89-318, 79 Stat. 1185 (originally introduced
as H.R. 9545), dealing with the acquisition and preservation of
certain items of evidence before the President's Commission on
the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, by the exercise
of eminent domain, is not in irreconcilable conflict with, and
was not intended as a repeal of or substitute for, the provisions
of the Federal Firearms Act. The cardinal rule is that repeals by
implication are not favored. Posadas v. National City Bank
(1936), 296 U.S. 497, 503, 56 S.Ct. 349, 80 L.Ed. 351. Nothing in
the Act or its history either mentions or refers to the Federal
Firearms Act. There is no basis in the record for inferring that
Congress had any intent to repeal or affect in any way the
forfeiture provisions of the Federal Firearms Act.
Obviously, neither the Attorney General nor the Congress had
the authority to decide the question before this Court of the
forfeitability of these weapons to the government. All concerned
were determined that these weapons and other items of evidence
designated by the Attorney General would be preserved by the
government of the United States. To make sure this was done,
Public Law 89-318 was passed. If either the Attorney General or
the Congress had any idea that they were repealing, altering or
affecting the forfeiture provisions of the Federal Firearms Act,
they made no mention of it. It must be concluded that they had no
such intention.
Counsel will submit a judgment of forfeiture.
STIPULATION OF FACTS
It is stipulated and agreed for the purpose of the
above-shown action and for no other purpose, even though the
parties thereto may be identical, that the hereinafter outlined
facts may be taken as true. Neither party agrees that any
particular fact hereinafter stipulated is relevant or material to
the issue.
1. The rifle and revolver described in the Libel of
Information are herein respectively called the "Rifle" and the
"Pistol."
2. That on November 22, 1963, Eugene Boone, Deputy Sheriff,
Dallas County, Texas, and Seymour Weitzman, Deputy Constable,
Dallas County, Texas, discovered the rifle with telescopic sight
on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, Dallas,
Texas. (President's Commission Report, page 79.)
3. That on November 22, 1963, Lt. J. C. Day, Dallas Police
Department, removed the rifle and telescopic sight from the sixth
floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, Dallas, Texas, and
took such rifle to the Dallas Police Department office as
property taken as evidence in connection with the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy. (PCR, p. 79)
4. That the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald was found
on the underside of the barrel of the rifle by Lt. J. C. Day,
Dallas Police Department. (PCR, pp. 122-123.)
5. That on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, Dallas
police officers took the respondent pistol from Lee Harvey
Oswald. (PCR, pp. 178-179.)
6. That the respondent rifle and respondent pistol were
transferred between various places and persons as follows:
(a) November 22, 1963, the rifle was received by an F.B.I.
agent from the Dallas Police Department.
(b) November 23, 1963, the rifle was taken to the F.B.I.
Laboratory, Washington, D.C., by an F.B.I. Special Agent.
(c) November 24, 1963, the rifle was returned to the F.B.I.
vault in Dallas, Texas, and later on that date was turned over to
Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry.
(d) November 26, 1963, Dallas Police Department returned the
rifle to F.B.I. Special Agent for return to the F.B.I. vault.
(e) November 27, 1963, rifle was taken to F.B.I. Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., by Special Agent, F.B.I.
(f) February 5, 1964, rifle delivered to President's
Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
(g) February 6, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(h) February 17, 1964, rifle delivered to President's
Commission.
(i) February 17, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(j) March 11, 1964, rifle delivered to President's
Commission.
(k) March 11, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(l) March 17, 1964, rifle delivered to President's
Commission.
(m) March 30, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(n) March 31, 1964, rifle delivered to President's
Commission.
(o) May 8, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(p) July 2, 1964, rifle delivered to President's Commission.
(q) July 2, 1964, rifle returned to F.B.I. Laboratory.
(r) August 13, 1965, rifle shipped from F.B.I. Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., to F.B.I. office, Dallas, Texas, arriving in
Dallas, Texas, on August 16, 1965.
(s) At sometime during the period March 17, 1964 to March
30, 1964, rifle was tested by the Weapons Evaluation Branch,
Department of Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Also,
during or about March 1964, the rifle was tested at Edgewood
Arsenal, Maryland.
(aa) November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, officers of Dallas
Police Department took the pistol, and on this same date turned
the pistol over to a Special Agent of the F.B.I.
(bb) November 23, 1963, the pistol was taken to the F.B.I.
Laboratory, Washington, D.C., by an F.B.I. agent.
(cc) November 24, 1963, the pistol was returned to the
F.B.I. vault in Dallas, Texas, and later on this date was turned
over to Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry.
(dd) November 26, 1963, the pistol was returned to the
F.B.I. Special Agent by the Dallas Police Department.
(ee) November 27, 1963, the pistol was taken to the F.B.I.
Laboratory, Washington, D.C., by F.B.I. Special Agent.
(ff) February 5, 1964, the pistol was delivered to the
President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy.
(gg) February 6, 1964, the pistol was returned to the F.B.I.
Laboratory.
(hh) March 25, 1964, the pistol was delivered to the
President's Commission.
(ii) March 30, 1964, the pistol was returned to the F.B.I.
Laboratory.
(jj) April 1, 1964, the pistol was delivered to the
President's Commission.
(kk) May 1, 1964, the pistol was returned to the F.B.I.
Laboratory.
(ll) August 13, 1965, the pistol was shipped from the F.B.I.
Laboratory, Washington, D.C., to F.B.I. office in Dallas, Texas,
arriving in Dallas on August 16, 1965.
7. On November 29, 1963, by Executive Order No. 11130,
President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Commission to investigate
the assassination on November 22, 1963, of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. (PCR Foreword.)
8. Attached hereto as Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 are true and
correct copies of Senate Report #851 and House Report No. 813 on
H.R. 9545 providing for the acquisition and preservation of
certain items of evidence pertaining to the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy.
9. That the rifle was shipped to one A. Hidell, P.O. Box
2915, Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods
Company, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago 24, Illinois.
(PCR, pp. 118-119.)
10. That the order for the rifle was on a coupon clipped
from the American Rifleman Magazine; that this order coupon was
signed, in handprinting, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas;
and that this printing on the face of the mail order coupon was
in the handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald. (PCR, p. 119.)
11. Attached hereto as Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6 are true and
correct photographic reproductions accurately depicting
information contained on the originals of documents reflecting
the order, invoice for shipment, and payment for the rifle.
12. That at sometime during the period January 27, 1963 and
March 13, 1963, Seaport Traders, Inc., a division of George Rose
and Company, Inc., Los Angeles, California, received an order for
the pistol, which order was signed A. J. Hidell, and the address
was shown as Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, (PCR, p. 174.)
13. That on March 13, 1963, an invoice was prepared by
Seaport Traders, Inc., Los Angeles, California, covering the sale
of the pistol to A. J. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas,
Texas, and this revolver was shipped to the name and address
shown on the invoice on March 20, 1963. (PCR, pp. 174 and 173).
14. Attached hereto as Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are true
and correct photographic reproductions accurately depicting
information contained on the originals of documents reflecting
the order, invoice for shipment, and shipment for the pistol.
15. That Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, was rented in
the name of Lee H. Oswald from October 9, 1962 to May 14, 1963.
(PCR, p. 119.)
16. That Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, was rented by
Lee Harvey Oswald from October 9, 1962 to May 14, 1963. (PCR, pp.
119-120.)
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct
photographic reproduction accurately depicting information
contained on the original document reflecting renting of Post
Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, by Lee H. Oswald.
18. That the mail order for the rifle was made by Lee Harvey
Oswald using the name A. Hidell. (PCR, p. 569.)
19. That the mail order for the pistol was made by Lee
Harvey Oswald using the name of A. J. Hidell. (PCR, p. 570.)
20. The individual who mailed the purchase orders, referred
to in stipulations 10 and 11 above, was given the name Lee Harvey
Oswald at birth. (PCR, p. 377.) In the purchase of the rifle in
March 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald used the name "A. Hidell," and in
the purchase of the pistol, Lee Harvey Oswald used the name "A.
J. Hidell." (PCR, pp. 119-121.) The post office box to which the
rifle and pistol were sent was rented in the name of Lee H.
Oswald. (PCR, p. 119) At the time of his arrest on November 22,
1963, Lee Harvey Oswald carried on his person a forged Selective
Service Notice of Classification in the name of "Alek James
Hidell" and a forged United States Marine Corps Certificate of
Service in the name of "Alek James Hidell." (PCR, pp. 571-574.)
He also had on his person a Selective Service Notice of
Classification, a Selective Service Registration Certificate, and
a United States Marine Corps Certificate of Service, all in the
name of Lee Harvey Oswald. (PCR, pp. 571- 574.) Lee Harvey Oswald
rented a room at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue, Dallas, Texas, in the
name of "O. H. Lee" where he lived on November 22, 1963, and his
landlady at this address did not know him as Lee Harvey Oswald.
(PCR, pp. 182, 419.) Among Lee Harvey Oswald's effects at 1026 N.
Beckley Avenue, Dallas, Texas, there was found a vaccination
certificate dated June 8, 1963, showing vaccination of Lee Harvey
Oswald by "Dr. A. J. Hideel," P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans,
Louisiana. The signature of Dr. A. J. Hideel was in the
handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. There was no P.O. Box 30016 in
New Orleans; however, Lee Harvey Oswald rented box 30061 in New
Orleans on June 3, 1963, and "A. J. Hidell" was shown as an
additional person entitled to receive mail there. (PCR, pp.
121-122.)
In May 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, while in New Orleans, joined
a New York organization called Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
(PCR, p. 290) He caused to be printed handbills headed "Hands Off
Cuba" and had membership cards for a local New Orleans FPCC
Chapter. (PCR, p. 291.) Lee Harvey Oswald's membership card for
the New Orleans Chapter of FPCC showed member name as Lee Harvey
Oswald and also showed "A. J. Hidell" as chapter president. (PCR,
p. 292.) Mrs. Marina Oswald helped Lee Harvey Oswald by writing
the name "Hidell" on the membership cards at the insistence of
Lee Harvey Oswald. (PCR, p. 292.) Some of the "Hands Off Cuba"
handbills showed the named and address of "L. H. Oswald, 4907
Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana"; whereas others showed
"A. J. Hidell, P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans, Louisiana." (PCR, p.
409.) Lee Harvey Oswald was the only member of the FPCC Chapter
which he attempted to organize in New Orleans. (PCR, p. 407.) He
was arrested by New Orleans Police on August 9, 1963, for
disturbing the peace because of a street fight in connection with
the distribution of the "Hands Off Cuba" handbills. He was
arrested as Lee Harvey Oswald. (PCR, p. 436.)
Mrs. Marina Oswald first heard of Lee Harvey Oswald's use of
the name "Hidell" in connection with the pro-Castro activity in
New Orleans, which was after May 29, 1963. (PCR, pp. 122, 290).
The name "Alek," however, was a nickname used by Lee Harvey
Oswald in Russia, and he signed "Alek" to some letters written to
Marina Oswald. (PCR, p. 122.)
Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald were known by the name
Oswald by the Paine family in Irving, Texas, where the family
lived in October and November 1963. (PCR, p. 438.)
21. That during the calendar year 1963 Klein's Sporting
Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago 24, Illinois, was
a licensed dealer in firearms and held license No. 36-2601 issued
pursuant to Section 903, Title 15, United States Code, a part of
the Federal Firearms Act.
22. That Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
kept records required by Section 903(d) of Title 15, United
States Code, and as to the respondent rifle these records showed
such firearm as shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas,
Texas.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibits 13, 14, and 15 are true and
correct copies of records of the sale of the rifle made by
24. That during the calendar year 1963, Seaport Traders,
Inc., 1221 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California, was a
licensed dealer in firearms and held license No. 95-1437 issued
pursuant to Section 903, Title 15, United States Code, a part of
the Federal Firearms Act.
25. That Seaport Traders, Inc., Los Angeles, California,
kept records required by Section 903(d) of Title 15, United
States Code, and as to the respondent pistol these records showed
such firearm as shipped to A. J. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas,
Texas.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11 are true
and correct copies of records of the sale of the pistol made by
Seaport Traders, Inc., a mail order division of George Rose and
Company.
27. The rifle and the pistol shown above as shipped to
Hidell were actually received by the individual generally known
as Lee Harvey Oswald. (PCR, pp. 128, 171.)
28. The rifle was used by Lee Harvey Oswald in the
assassination of President Kennedy and the pistol was used by Lee
Harvey Oswald in killing a Dallas Police Officer. (PCR pp. 19,
20, 129, 176.)
29. On December 31, 1964, Marina N. Oswald, widow of Lee
Harvey Oswald, individually and as community survivor, sold to
John J. King all right, title and interest which she had in and
to the rifle and pistol for and in consideration of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00) paid by buyer to seller. A true and correct
copy of that Bill of Sale and Contract covering this transaction
is attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
30. That on March 25, 1965, Marina N. Oswald, individually
and as community administratrix of the Estate of Lee Harvey
Oswald, sold to John J. King all right, title, and interest over
which she had power of sale as such administratrix in and to the
rifle and pistol for and in consideration of an additional Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) that day paid by buyer to seller. A
true and correct copy of that Bill of Sale and Contract covering
this transaction is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 17.
31. At the time of the purchases by John J. King, referred
to in stipulation Nos. 29 and 30 above, John J. King knew that
the rifle and pistol were in the possession of agents of the
United States. At the time of the purchases referred to in
stipulation Nos. 29 and 30, John J. King had no actual notice or
actual knowledge of a claim of title thereto by the United
States.
32. At no time prior to publication of the notice of seizure
of the pistol and rifle and the forfeiture proceedings on or
about August 16, 1965, had the United States or any of its
representatives ever asserted to claimant, John J. King, any
claimed right of forfeiture.
33. On May 24, 1965, John J. King filed an action for the
recovery of the rifle and pistol in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. True copies of the Complaint,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, or
alternatively to stay further proceedings, and the order dated
October 8, 1965, in that action are attached and marked Exhibit
18.
34. On or about June 17, 1965, the Attorney General of the
United States submitted to the Vice President and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives a proposed bill to authorize him to
condemn the rifle and the pistol and other items of evidence
introduced before the President's Commission.
35. That on or about August 4, 1965, the Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service determined to
commence forfeiture proceedings against the rifle and the pistol.
The forfeitability of these firearms had been considered by the
Department of Justice and the Treasury Department in considering
methods of preserving these firearms for historical purposes. The
Department of Justice filed a memorandum in John J. King's Denver
action stating, in part as follows:
"This forfeiture proceeding had previously been withheld
upon the hope that the prosecution of the present action
could be postponed pending enactment of H.R. 9545. If
plaintiff has any lawful property interest in the firearms,
he could then have been paid just compensation. Plaintiff,
however, has vigorously opposed defendant's efforts to
continue this action and it thereby became necessary for
Internal Revenue to file its proceeding."
36. That at the time of the sale and delivery of the rifle
and of the pistol by the licensed firearms dealers, such dealers
had no knowledge or reason to suspect that the person to whom
such weapons were shipped had any name other than that shown in
the order forms.
37. That since seizure of the rifle and of the pistol on
November 22, 1963, such firearms have continuously remained in
custody of the President's Commission or of units of the Federal
Government or of the City of Dallas, Texas, as shown in
stipulation No. 6 above. These firearms at no time have been
released to anyone for nongovernmental use.
38. In an interview on or about August 15, 1963, Lee Harvey
Oswald falsely informed a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation that, since he had received his membership card in
the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he
had spoken with "Hidell" on several occasions on the telephone.
He also stated that he had never personally met "Hidell."
(Hearing before President's Commission on the Assassination of
President Kennedy, Vol. XVII, Exhibit 826, page 759.)
39. During an interview on or about August 17, 1963, by
William Kirk Stuckey of New Orleans radio station WDSU, Lee
Harvey Oswald falsely stated that he, Oswald, was not president
of the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee,
but was the secretary and that "this other gentleman, Hidell, was
the president." Lee Harvey Oswald then exhibited his membership
card showing Oswald as secretary and Hidell as president. (PCR,
p. 729, Hearings Vol. XI, page 162.)
40. On November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald told Captain
Will Fritz, Dallas Police Department, that he, Oswald, did not
know anyone by the name A. J. Hidell, and he, Oswald, falsely
told Captain Will Fritz that he had never used the name "A. J.
Hidell" as an alias. During the course of that interview Lee
Harvey Oswald stated to Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police
Department that he did not know anyone by the name "A. J. Hidell"
and he falsely stated that he had never heard of the name before.
(PCR, page 636.)
41. The rifle and pistol were acquired by Lee Harvey Oswald
during his marriage to Marina N. Oswald.
42. The information set forth on pages 741 through 745 of
the President's Commission Report correctly shows the financial
situation of Lee Harvey Oswald during the period covered so far
as can be ascertained.
FOOTNOTES
FN*. See also One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965).